i think frankly was the best public editor, dan. he was pretty critical. i didn't all the agree with him and he had his kind of quirks like everybody else does and he couldn't stand klugman who i think is quiet good. and then gentle barney very rarely raised his voice so they liked him. and i was pretty -- kind of critical of him. he's a very nice man but didn't push them. then the next person was craig whoy thought was quite good. then they had author who didn't finish his term and didn't have much to say. but i think really what we need in the public editor frankly, and i have said this in print, not in the book, but they need kind of a somewhat trance gressive feistty public editor who calls them to account. for example, their financial reports, i've talked about that, are often semibog gus. they are on the mystic and were issuing reports that weren't true. if they issue reports ten years in a row that are overly optimistic somebody should call them on this. they just write stories about themselves. but i think we could have a little bit of a -- they sh